Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?
Ensuring that the poor or the most vulnerable sections of society benefit from REDD+ projects is crucial to building both national and international legitimacy and to fostering successful delivery of conservation and social objectives. In both academic and non-academic literature, issues of the equity of benefit-sharing at a community or household level are overlooked compared with distributional issues at the national and international level. Therefore, this paper aims to look at some of the issues related to benefit distribution at village and household level. Two very important factors that are likely to affect benefit distribution from REDD+ at a village level are whether payments are made directly to households or to communities as a whole; and whether payments are made in cash or in kind. In addition, the paper looks at the following design questions, which are closely related to these above factors: 1. What should the provision of benefits be based on – landholding size, actual emission reductions or the demography of the community – to ensure that equitable design criteria are met? 2. How can it be ensured that more vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, the smalllandholders and landless poor, women and children do not lose out? 3. What impact would the type of benefit transferred have on the well-being of the communities and the local economy? To this end, experiences are reviewed from payments for ecosystem services, integrated conservation and development projects, community-based natural resource management and food or cash transfer programmes across the global south. In addition, benefit distribution systems that would enable the REDD+ pilot projects in general are suggested, and the REDD pilot project in Cat Tien National Park in particular, to be more pro-poor. Evidence is examined on how well schemes meet external criteria of equitable benefit distribution as well as assessing the perceptions of those involved. Conclusions drawn include: l Whether benefits are provided to a community as a whole or to individual households, and what benefits to transfer, are decisions that should be made on the basis of community consultation and careful assessment of their preferences. l Even though determining payment types and levels is best tailored through consultations with local people to best match community aspirations and those in need, economic feasibility, local institutional capacity and governance structures, and the effects on the local economy and on the livelihoods of the poor households should be carefully weighed and assessed. l Assessment of the preference for payment type should not be a one-off activity. Because participant communities are unlikely to have experience in receiving rewards in exchange for ecosystem service provision, their stated preferences may not be accurate in the early stages of the scheme. Once the scheme is implemented and communities start receiving payment, their preferences should be periodically assessed and changes in payment type should be made accordingly. This will increase the implementation and transaction costs of REDD+. Project developers and designers should budget for the cost of participation at the project design phase. l To promote pro-poor benefit distribution from REDD+ interventions, benefit distribution based on proportionality and the equality of opportunities to participate would be more relevant in areas where the participants are characterized by less inequality. In an unequal society (for example characterized by land disparity), on the other hand, benefit distribution based on need that positively discriminates in favour of the poor would be more desirable so that poor or weak claimants do not receive disproportionately lower benefits than the relatively well-off.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ben Groom & Charles Palmer, 2008. "Direct vs Indirect Payments for Environmental Services: The Role of Relaxing Market Constraints," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Papers 36.2008, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economics, revised 2008.
- Bennett, Michael T., 2008. "China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 699-711, May.
- Jayne, Thomas S. & Yamano, Takashi & Weber, Michael T. & Tschirley, David L. & Benfica, Rui M.S. & Neven, David & Chapoto, Antony & Zulu, Ballard, 2002.
"Smallholder Income And Land Distribution In Africa: Implications For Poverty Reduction Strategies,"
2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA
19692, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
- Jayne, T. S. & Yamano, Takashi & Weber, Michael T. & Tschirley, David & Benfica, Rui & Chapoto, Antony & Zulu, Ballard, 2003. "Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 253-275, June.
- Jayne, Thomas S. & Yamano, Takashi & Weber, Michael T. & Tschirley, David L. & Benfica, Rui M.S. & Chapoto, Antony & Zulu, Ballard & Neven, David, 2002. "Smallholder Income and Land Distribution in Africa: Implications for Poverty Reduction Strategies," Food Security International Development Policy Syntheses 11295, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
- Jayne, Thomas S. & Yamano, Takashi & Weber, Michael T. & Tschirley, David L. & Benfica, Rui M.S. & Neven, David & Chapoto, Antony & Zulu, Ballard, 2001. "Smallholder Income and Land Distribution in Africa: Implications for Poverty Reduction Strategies," Food Security International Development Papers 54047, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
- Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
- Faminow, Merle D., 1995. "Issues in valuing food aid: The cash or in-kind controversy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-10, February.
- Pagiola, Stefano, 2006.
"Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica,"
2010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
- Tacconi, Luca, 2009. "Compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation vs compensated reductions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2469-2472, June.
- Takahashi, Kazushi, 2007. "Sources of Regional Income Disparity in Rural Vietnam: Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition," IDE Discussion Papers 95, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
- Ahmed, Akhter U. & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Nasreen, Mahbuba & Hoddinott, John F. & Bryan, Elizabeth, 2009. "Comparing Food and Cash Transfers to the Ultra-Poor in Bangladesh," Research reports 163, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Katia Karousakis, 2009. "Promoting Biodiversity Co-Benefits in REDD," OECD Environment Working Papers 11, OECD Publishing.
- Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
- Cunha, Jesse & De Giorgi, Giacomo & Jayachandran, Seema, 2011.
"The Price Effects of Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
8581, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Jesse M. Cunha & Giacomo De Giorgi & Seema Jayachandran, 2011. "The Price Effects of Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers," NBER Working Papers 17456, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:43648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.